Get organization

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on permissions required, whether missing orgs error vs return empty, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short phrase with no waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — there is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A 4-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters needs the description to explain the identifier and return shape; instead it offers four words. An agent cannot confidently invoke it from this definition alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters (org_id required, plus opaque form/params/json_body). The description provides no explanation of what org_id is (organization UUID vs internal ID vs name) or what the generic wrapper parameters are for, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description essentially restates the tool name/title ("Get organization" -> "Get organization details") without adding scope, filters, or distinguishing features. It gives no way to tell this apart from near-identical siblings such as vaultwarden_get_org_details, vaultwarden_organizations, or vaultwarden_get_org_collections_details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (admin/organization context, auth), and no naming of alternatives. The agent is left to guess between this and vaultwarden_get_org_details.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.